Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informed consent is one of the most discussed issues of medical law. This thesis tries to contribute to the discussion through a comparative study between Czech law and Canadian law (the common law part of Canadian law), focusing on the basic components of the subject matter. The thesis is divided into six parts. The first one deals with information disclosure and consent to treatment in the paternalistic model and the participatory model of a doctor-patient relationship. The second part provides an overview of relevant Czech and Canadian legal sources and also of key milestones in the development of informed consent in both countries. The third part of the thesis discusses the concept of informed consent. The fourth part is focused on the disclosure - its content and scope, form and other related aspects. The fifth part of the thesis deals with the consent itself - its elements, the withdrawal of consent and the refusal to give consent. Finally, the sixth part deals with the specifics of minors. With regard to the basic features of informed consent, it can be clearly stated that the compared legal systems are fundamentally the same. Differences can be seen only when analysing the subject matter into very great detail and those differences are usually various technicalities (e.g. determination of...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".